we want there to be a sensible brexit. and we will continue to work... and now some of the brexiteers in her own party are very unhappy. this is a game being played out over power and the answer at the end boils down to who will call the shots on this, and right now we have to say, not good enough. you need to change this process and to back off, otherwise we get on with other arrangements. can theresa may escape the tangle of competing demands on her brexit vision? the clock is ticking. we hearfrom the european parliament and from a prominent brexiteer. should britain or the eu make the next concession? a doctor made a series of mistakes. a six—year—old child died. should the doctor he allowed to practise again? we hearfrom the mother of jack adcock, who died at the leicester royal infirmary, and a doctor who wants the nhs to learn lessons rather than punish those who make errors. putin likes showing the world his sporting prowess. but his country's team are barred from the 2018 winter olympics. does he benefit from playing the victim of the west? we ask the president of the anti—doping authorities and an expert on russian democracy.
hello. a brexit deal to get us to the next phase of talks didn't happen yesterday, and today there's been more drama. theresa may is now trapped between brexiteer mps' desire to stop making concessions, the taoiseach‘s veto over the next round of talks, and the dup's hold over her government. is it like the end of reservoir dogs? feels like it. but at the heart of it is a trilemma. the uk government is looking for three things from which the eu says we can only have two. britain wants no land border between northern ireland and the republic. it wants no sea border between northern ireland and the rest of the uk. but it wants no eu control at home — independence from eu rules — which implies a border between britain and the eu. the irish say they'll not accept
a breach of number one. the dup will not tolerate a breach of number two. so does that mean we have no choice but to breach number three? well, that's not what iain duncan smith and his fellow brexiteers want. brexit secretary david davis kind of admitted that three is the one to look at, but in the commons today he thought we could still take back control even if we align many of our rules to the eu's. the presumption of the discussion was that everything we talked about applied to the whole united kingdom. alignment isn't harmonisation. it isn't having exactly the same rules. it is sometimes having mutually recognised rules, mutually recognised inspection — that is what we are aiming at. well, can we really have a uk—wide arrangement that allows us to be different from the eu, but similar enough for northern ireland not to have a border? there are two thoughts about this. we need a fudge in a form of words that simply gets us to the next stage of talks, and then we work out a solution properly later.
or that we have to face the difficult choice now, as it won't go away by a carefully drafted piece of constructive ambiguity. nick watt is with me. what did you make of david davis ‘s session? those specific remarks were meant to reassure the dup that this idea, this new buzz phrase, of regulatory alignment would apply across the uk. yes, there would be a northern ireland element, which is essentially embedding those elements are cross—border co—operation in the good friday agreement, but the uk wide element is how you deliver that regulatory alignment and what it is about is the uk deciding what to do as a rule—maker, deciding which bits of regulation to accept, not meekly accepting them from the eu as a rule taker. now, this was not good enough for some tory brexiteer is. i'm told after that statement one leading figure eyeballed david davis across the lunch table and said, this will not do, you cannot sign up to this. so i've been looking at how this row with the dup is now spreading into the tory party. the season of goodwill
should soon be upon us. for the moment, it all feels a bit scratchy as the government's brexit negotiations are thrown into the air. in an ideal world, theresa may would have hailed an eu deal with a european ally today. a pre—christmas meeting with her spanish counterpart still went ahead. the prime minister now faces a new headache after tory—leave supporters rejected the eu proposed deal in its current form. the prime minister has bent over backwards in every way and we have
been rebuffed by the eu. they need to go away and think again. today we want a trade arrangement? in which case it's a bit absurd to block everything up before you discuss trade. iain duncan smith took his cue from the dup. we want to see a sensible brexit and we will work through the basis of the clear red lines we have set down, which are, as we understand it, the red lines of the government as well, so a sensible brexit in which the uk leaves as one nation with a sensible relationship with the rest of the eu. tory brexiteers are delighted with the dup. one told me, their intervention has saved us having to rebel against the government in parliament. those tories want to use the pause is to try and change the pace of the negotiations. the aim is to stop the prime minister offering what they fear are irrevocable commitments to the eu that could not be withdrawn even if the uk is unhappy with the final deal. if that can't be done, they say simply the uk should walk away. labour is alarmed by the new alliance between the dup and the tory brexiteers.
it is grossly irresponsible to be advocating walking away from these negotiations. and sure the prime minister isn't going to do that. the surest way to ensure a hard border in northern ireland is to walk away from these negotiations, it is to walk away from our responsibilities. the current impasse over the irish border prompted the leaders of britain's devolved bodies to warn that the uk is facing a delicate moment. the first minister of wales believes the uk government would be wise to consult more widely. we would prefer to be more closely involved in the brexit negotiations. i think we could be constructive in terms of what we have to offer. we can, i think, provide a helping hand to the uk government. it's not as preventing brexit, that's not going to happen, but there are sensible, pragmatic people in the government who want it to be a brexit that works for britain and not some hard—line, nationalist brexit that some in the tory party seem to want. amid a swirl of uncertainty,
theresa may is hoping to restore some calm, but the prime minister knows she faces a formidable challenge to settle this issue. and nick is still here. do you think she can get this show back on the road, particularly with the clock ticking? i sense a less than optimistic view of meeting that by this friday deadline. there had been thought that the prime minister would go to brussels after pmqs tomorrow. i think she will not even be there by thursday because the dup are really digging in. they are saying there have to be substantial amendments
to this proposed deal with the eu. the wording stage, there needs to be lots more wording, and then they are saying, we are not accepting this deadline, even the deadline of sorting this out by the eu council next week. they have said, the eu, they can hold an emergency summit, they've done it before, so why can't they do it again? but there is a potential chink of light for the government. the dup's red line is that there must be complete, let's use our favourite word, alignment between northern ireland and the rest of the uk, and if that can be achieved, then possibly theresa may could be able to win the dup, if not many of her tory brexiteers. thank you. while theresa may works her way through all of this, she does so, of course, against the ticking clock of the eu's deadline of the end of this week to reach an agreement if britain is to unlock the next round of talks. so what's the mood in brussels? i spoke earlier to the dutch mep sophie in‘t veld, deputy of the eu parliament's chief
negotiator guy verhofstadt. i asked whether after david davis said in the commons today that the plan was always for northern ireland to have the same regulatory arrangements as the rest of the uk, if that was her understanding of yesterday's deal? well, i think that's fantastic because that in essence means brexit isn't going to happen, because if there is regulatory alignment ferrari large part, then the uk would still follow the same eu rules. it doesn't make much sense to me but if that is what he proposes, that sounds very good. if we went down the david davis route, would we have to have free movement as well? we're talking about very shady proposals here. we don't know what we are actually talking about. it sounds like you don't know... but nobody knows. 0k! at some point, we would also like to know exactly
what it is that the uk government wants. only once we have a clear idea that can renegotiate. can i ask whether you think there was any solution, any solution, to the northern ireland border issue that doesn't involve a border between britain and northern ireland, and allows theresa may to keep her red line? she is spelt out some red lines. can she keep those, not have a border down the irish sea and not have a border with the republic of ireland? does that work in any way at all? there won't be a border. the question is how it will work in practice. one solution is going to be apparently one that the government has in mind, which is, ok, we won't set up a physical border post but we willjust put up some cameras and sensors. no, clearly that won't work because people will not accept it. there will have to be a soft border. i think that's clear. otherwise you jeopardise the good friday agreement and that would be disastrous. you are jeopardising the good friday agreement by potentially ruling out
a deal with the uk that is acceptable to the uk. it takes two sides are there to be no deal, doesn't it? if there is no deal, you would want to put a border there to protect the integrity of your single market. this is a very strange way of looking at it, and i am also a little bit irritated. the eu is an entity that's been around for around 60 years and for over a0 years the uk has been a member. the uk has been building the eu as much as any other country and in fact it has been in the forefront building the single market. now, the uk has chosen to leave the eu and for the time being it looks as though they want to leave the internal market. the uk knows better than anybody else what the rules of the single market are. you've created them together with the rest of europe.
i wonder whether you think that the rest of the eu will go all the way to the wire on this issue backing up ireland. ireland says we have a veto but we don't need to use it because everybody is supporting them. is everybody supporting ireland on this? yes. the way i understood it — i mean, i wasn't in the room — but the way i understood it is that theresa may said, ok, can we debate on this notion of regulatory alignment for northern ireland and see if that is a basis for negotiations? that was a very positive step. but then apparently she got a phone call from the dup telling her, no, you are not. so then she also has to choose. who is in charge? do you have some sympathy for her predicament, though, given she is between the republic of ireland that has a veto over the next stage, the dup that is holding her government in office, and indeed
the aspirations of those who voted for brexit last year in the referendum? of course! i'm very happy i'm not in her shoes. i recognise it's very difficult and contrary to what some of the british media are reporting, there is really nobody, i've met nobody, in the european parliament that is somehow out to punish the uk. quite the opposite. people in the netherlands want to keep close ties to the uk but with a limit to what you can do in saying, ok, you can leave the eu, you will have access to the single market but you don't have to abide by the rules everybody else has too. but is simply not an option and i think you and everybody will understand that. thank you for talking to us. i appreciate it. yesterday's deal, acceptable to the irish, implied that come what may, when brexit happens, northern ireland will not diverge from the eu in ways that might
require the construction of a border. as we've just heard from that interview, it seems even now some in the eu are not clear on exactly what the british plans are. we'll discuss this in moment with a brexit—supporting tory mp, but first our business editor, helen thomas, has been trying to make sense of the options. here is the problem in a nutshell or a milk bottle. everyone wants to avoid a hard border between northern ireland and the republic, so milk can flow freely between north and south much as it does now. hence the proposal this week. if the uk doesn't get the broad free trade deal that it once it would still commit to regulatory alignment, particularly in key areas like agriculture between northern ireland and the south. what alignment means was left probably intentionally vague.
is it really any different from noel diverges harmonisation or equivalence? but the main message was clear, animals and animal products would not need to be checked at special border inspection posts. here is the first problem. the implication was that northern ireland could follow some single market regulations, even if the rest of the uk chose not to. entered the dup. to them even that theoretical diverges between northern ireland and the rest of the uk is totally u na cce pta ble. it might mean no border between northern ireland and the republic, but instead you would need checks between northern ireland and great britain. why? well there is our old friend the chlorine washed chicken. say the uk did its much discussed deal with the us and accepted deploring chicken,
banned by the eu. to keep that pesky poultry out would require a border check either between great britain and northern ireland or northern ireland and the republic. but that is unacceptable either to the dup or the irish. so could the uk align itself entirely with eu rules in certain key areas? no borders, but then we couldn't agreed to buy us chicken. that could scupper our great plans for other trade deals. there is another problem. regulatory alignment is not necessarily enough to avoid any physical borders. for that you might need a customs union or agreeing the same set of external tariffs for goods arriving from non—eu countries. without it, well you are
still going to need some customs checks somewhere. of course, the government expects to get it broader deal but even to start talks means a border —based phage. the possibility of northern ireland having different rules from the rest of the uk or the idea of the whole uk aligning itself with the eu good evening. first, get you to comment on what iain duncan smith said? he seems as if to say scrap that if the eu do not move. we are all unionists and the idea that northern ireland was going to be treated differently from the rest of the uk is something that needs to be put to bed. that stock were to happen. we are committed to having a uk solution to the problem you have outlined.
what i would say broadly is that there are two aspects to this, there is the british government's negotiation with the eu which i know your piece did not reflect on but is going well. the chancellor said it was likely there was going to be a deal, donald tusk... rather than talk about my successes... you did not mention the successes. it is very important that viewers realise that the talks are going quite well. you got it down to the intractable end product and these are the ones that are not being sold because they are difficult. can i ask which you would prefer? if the eu gave us a choice would you rather there was a border between britain and northern ireland which you have just ruled out would you rather that britain stayed in the single market or close to it? i reject the premise.
both of those? what i am saying is that we have two issues, and negotiation with eu which is going very well. i except it has gone well on 90% of things. then we have the issue of the border in northern ireland. we were very close to a deal, the regulatory alignment formula, as david davis said today in the house of commons, does not mean that we have exactly the same rules. it is not the same to use this phrase as harmonisation. that is something that we have got to get our heads around and at the same time we have not really entered, as your clip said, we have not really entered the main nub. you're happy with what david davis said today, that there is a degree of alignment and to some extent, not as much as been in the single market, but the whole of the uk, to some extent aligns itself... if you look around the world, new zealand
and australia, they have a degree of regulatory alignment. these countries, forgive me, these countries are sovereign nations. they are not the same country. we have got the alignment, that is where we are and you would accept that. i did not get the feeling that iain duncan smith would accept it but you would, is that the brexit that people thought they were voting for? the brexit that people were voting for broadly, which is as a brexiteer, is to have control of borders, freedom of movement andi think we will deliver on that. there is also the issue of the european court ofjustice being superior as it were to british law and i think we are going to claim sovereignty on that and the third item was obviously the money. it is clear to me on the money side, we are not
going to continue paying a net contribution of 10 billion every single year until kingdom come to the eu, that is ending and that was the nature of... all three of those issues i think we will deliver on. it was not said in the campaign that there would be a degree of alignment, this problem seems to have come as a surprise to the brexit side of the argument. if you spoke to a brexiteer on the campaign, people were very keen that we had a free trade deal. there would be a free trade deal between the uk and eu. the nature of free trade deals, you are an economist, you understand, that there is some degree regulatory alignment in free trade. it is on that basis. when iain duncan smith says no deal, we could walk away, what do you think
of the no deal option? there are differing views about how bad that would be. i think that is very unlikely. i say that because i speak to the chancellor, people in government and the broad conservative party. is it bad, would be a tragedy for the uk economy? i'm here as a brexiteer, icampaigned on your show, i took part in debates, i have not been frightened of the idea of no deal. i always said that britain had a great future and a great ability to trade its way into gaining prosperity is with no deal but that is not something that think is on the cards and i think it is much more likely that we will get a deal. ok, thank you. back in 2011 a young boy, jack adcock, died in hospital in leicester. it was obviously a tragic case, but also one with implications for medical staff today. a doctor and a nurse were convicted of manslaughter over jack's death and the doctor is now at the centre of an argument about whether she should be allowed to continue practising. a letter to the times today from hundreds of medics and others
says she should be allowed to keep working. here is a brief history of the case. it was february 2011 when six—year—old jack adcock, a child with down‘s syndrome, died of a cardiac arrest at leicester royal infirmary. he had developed sepsis but it was not diagnosed. and although not a cause of death, dr hadiza bawa—garba stopped other staff performing cpr onjack, mistakenly thinking that he was subject to a do not resuscitate order. for that and other failings, she and a nurse, isabel amaro, were eventually convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence at nottingham crown court. they got suspended jail sentences and both were suspended from their posts. but dr bawa—garba was given a second chance to practise as a paediatrician. the medical practitioners tribunal service found that there had been system problems as well as individual ones,
and thought she should be kept on the medical register as she would not be a danger to patients. the general medical council disagrees with that and the issue is now about to be decided by the high court. should she be allowed to practise as a doctor or not? for the many who wrote to the times, the case criminalises medical error and makes it far harder to learn from mistakes. with me are jack's mother, nicola adcock, and drjenny vaughan, consultant neurologist from the campaign group manslaughter and healthca re. good evening to you both. i will start with you, nicola, what was your reaction when you heard about this letter from hundreds of medics. i was mortified, i was devastated. that all these doctors had got together and obviously supported the fact that she had been charged with gross negligence ina criminal court by a jury, it was a long... we were in court for four and a half weeks and i don't understand how a doctor could be charged with gross negligence and manslaughter
and still be able to work. where does it give the public any faith, any of the community any faith? i would like as most people watching, if they took their child to the hospital, and a doctor, who has been charged with gross negligence and manslaughter over the death of a child, a six and a half year old little boy, would they be happy that that doctor is treating that child? she should be struck off. she got away with a two—year suspended sentence and now she has not even been struck off. and "justice forjack" is a slogan because you're trying to collect signatures. all of these people who got together, they are doctors but they are parents as well. does it make a difference that a lot of people have said, there was a lot going wrong at the hospital? i want a clear that up. i need to make sure that people
understand this was not a system blunder, not a system error, this doctor was a trainee. i need to clarify that she was a level six registrar, she had lots of training, where she may stop was basic things, as in cold hand, cold feet, he had a heart condition, not flinching when they put the dublin. i wrote down 20 things. we do not have nearly enough time. would it make a difference if doctors could persuade you that we would save more lives... rubbish. by learning from mistakes. if i was too quiet in my car and i was to run someone over, i would get charged with manslaughter. i would go to prison and i would lose my license. this was not a system blunder, this was more than 20 mistakes. i understand we are human beings and we make mistakes, one or two but not more than 20,
it is not acceptable. she even mixed him up with another child at the end of the night. when asked how you mixed up a child with down‘s syndrome with another child,, she said she got their parents mixed up. thank you. jenny, obviously this is a tragic case. what is the reason? you have heard the arguments, what is the case for saying you would employ this person as a doctor after a blunder like this? i have worked with many bereaved families and i really respect nicola coming here, she has lost her child and i'm not in that position. dr bawa—garba... the reason that it was felt... their tribunal found that there were systems failure is. there were over 70 systems
failure is identified by the hospital. they were all enclosed in a serious incident report and the jury did not hear about all of those we talk about system failures we mean things going wrong on the day, hospital results, although normal ranges did not come through, there was a lack of a senior alert system, there were failures at every level, failure is on trainee supervision, lots of different failures. i think we see the geography of the argument about how you apportion blame. i am interested in the bigger picture, what is your worry about what happens to medical professionals if doctors are struck off for this kind of thing? it is sad. we are all on the same side. doctors are on the same side as patience, what we want is a safe culture and the only way you really get a safe culture is no blame culture where people can be frank about their errors they made and they can discuss them and not feel challenged and they come out the open and say i did this wrong, that is the only way you actually
improve patient safety. you would agree that there are some errors that are too gross, that you would say, you are not fit for this job? doctors get struck off for fraud. in this case, the tribunal heard all the evidence... they did find that there were grotesque errors on the day and they said it was the fact that she had redeemed herself... she has had honest failure and basically honest failure should not be rewarded with punishment or retribution. she has been suspended, she has had trial by media and a lot of things have happened. would you let her look after your child? i absolutely would. through all of this we are on the same side as
patients. i would say, before all of this and afterjack died, she showed that she went on courses, she did show that she had insight into her errors and she expressed that. i would have no trouble in having her look after my child now because she has shown insight into those errors and that is that the whole profession. all of us need an open culture will become and express errors otherwise patient safety will not improve in the future. we should say that of course dr bawa—garba hasn't herself been able to respond to any of what has said about her today. we did make contact with her earlier through her solicitor and she gave us a statement. she said, "no words will ever bring jack back but i would like to apologise once again to his family for my clinical failings in his care. i think about this tragic case every day with regret and remorse, and if i could turn back time i would do things differently. my thoughts are with jack's family."
i know that you've never had... she's never shown remorse. she's never said sorry. as far as i'm concerned, she's got a heart of stone. and it would make a difference to you...? not now. when we were in court there were nurses on the stand. everybody that took that stand was so sorry and so remorseful. i mean, the nurse... others have said she did have remorse. that's because they are doctors clubbing together again, aren't they? last comment. i don't have any issue with any doctors and nurses out there. there are amazing doctors and nurses out there. this is just my thing about the one doctor that neglected my son that day. i don't want another family to go through this and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. we don't either, which is why we want everybody to have an open culture. we don't want this either. thank you both very much. time for viewsnight now. this time last week we brought you one arguing that donald trump had changed america for the better.
the president has had a busy week since then, packing in a diplomatic tweet row with theresa may, getting his tax reform bill through congress, and yesterday getting backing from the supreme court for his controversial travel ban. in the interests of balance, here's brian klass from the lse, arguing that america's democracy may not survive this presidency. we are fighting the fake news. it's fake, phoney, fake. because you'd be injail. we are fighting the fake news. it's fake, phoney, fake. because you'd be injail. secretary clinton... you may not find the conclusions very surprising, but according to the international olympic committee, russia has been involved in systematic doping in sport.
the ioc‘s disciplinary head samuel schmid said there is scientific evidence, there are witness statements, documents and correspondence, as well as the detailed testimony of a whistle—blower to prove it. as a result, the ioc have excluded russia from the next winter olympics in february, though a few athletes will be able to compete under a neutral flag. now, that is more draconian than anything in the summer olympics, when individual sports made their own decisions on russian participation. i'm joined by sir craig reedie — he's the president of the world anti—doping agency, and in berlin is the lse visiting fellow oksa na antonenko, whose research focuses on russia. if i can start with you on the sports side, sir craig reedie, it was remarkable what they were doing. just give a sense of what we now know they were doing. it's been tonight's news from the commission and it corroborates what we've known for the last three or four years, that russia had a systematic system of breaking the rules. every positive test
that came into the laboratory wasn't recorded in our recording system so we didn't have any positive tests. and then there was the cheating in sochi. they have this thing with the hole in the wall and the samples were passed through? it's remarkable they went to that trouble, but in addition, if they had dirty samples, they knew they had to have clean samples to replace them, so there was a bank of clean samples to send in. why has this taken so long to happen? because many people have said it was obvious the russians have been sophisticated in this department. if you look at the sochi situation, we had a laboratory expert who worked conscientiously between eight in the morning and eight at nine, he didn't work between midnight and ham, when the cheating went on, and i'm afraid most of the information that has come to us has come from whistle—blowers. one minister who has
been banned from the future games has been part of the world cup, fifa. but there is corporation that this went to the top of the ministry. what do you think the reaction of ordinary russians will be to this? i think most of the russians and opinion polls agree that those who violate the doping should be punished and those who enable it should be punished as well. but today will be seen as a collective punishment, not the punishment of those who violated the rules
but the punishment of the entire russian nation. and i think as always in russia, of course we know russians are very proud people and proud of their sporting achievements, so that will produce a running around the flag effect and in the upcoming presidential elections it will strengthen support for president putin and the very system which enabled doping, and perhaps will create a less conducive environment to investigate properly what went on in sochi and other olympic competitions. so you think it benefits president putin. but they do accept there's a sort of justice that says you need a discriminating punishment, and those who cheat get booted out
and those who don't don't. absolutely. at least among the opinion polls that you mention, the perception in society is that those who violate the rules should be punished, but it is also very important that it is seen as fair in terms of a process, in which the rule of law is followed, because otherwise it is being exploited, particularly through the state media and other sources of information, that this is discrimination against russia. is a blanket ban the right thing to do? curling, for example, is their drug cheating in that? so banning that team is an indiscriminate band. there are two groups here. there are the so—called clean athletes in russia who could come to the games provided they go through the necessary criteria so that they are as clean as we can make them. but there's another group who, since 2011 and 2015, have lost medals, championships because of a systemic doping system, so the world actually believes there has to be some
sanction on russia for organising that and the cheating on the clean athletes over the years. we will work hard to make sure proper controls are in place so that russian athletes can take place in the games injohn chiang. nobody wants to create a situation that means more support for president putin, but what do you do about systematic cheating in sport, the biggest that has ever occurred? i think it is important to distinguish between those who violated the rules and those who followed the procedure... but the state violated the rules.
it was the system, the government. it wasn't just the odd team or team member. absolutely. i think that has to be investigated very thoroughly and transparently but also you have to acknowledge a lot of russian athletes who didn't violate the rules and to our clean athletes, and who are now under a lot of pressure politically not to participate because they will not be participating under the russian flag and they will face a lot of pressure internally at home not to do that. thank you both very much. that's all for this evening. but before we go, do you ever find yourself cursing the air pollution that blights our towns and cities? well, nothing's new. 65 years ago today the great smog of london descended. and despite there being many times more cars these days, it's probably fair to say things have improved. good night. horns blare. evening paper! '. ..operate this evening. 'and the following trains will be
affected. . .' are we doing all we can to minimise the dislocation caused by fog? most of our efforts are remedial. in london, we still suffer damage that can be estimated in millions of pounds. the fault is largely our own. the fog is made worse by man. it is up to man to stop it. good evening. another relatively quiet night. but it will not stay that way for the next few days. things will turn more dramatic. this is the driver of that change, a swirl of cloud named storm caroline
by the met office. quiet conditions continue on wednesday. the odd spot of rain. breezy conditions in the north and west. 7—9. tomorrow, a lot of cloud. dry weather. the odd spot of cloud. dry weather. the odd spot of rain. the best chance of brightness through the day in eastern areas. out west, thickening up eastern areas. out west, thickening up with cloud. increasingly windy in the west. gales in exposed spots during the afternoon. a mild day. tomorrow night, this is where things step up. gales developing in northern and western areas. heavy rain pushing in courtesy of storm caroline. it will go to the north of the british isles for wednesday night and thursday. look at the tightly squeezed isobars on
thursday. very strong winds. especially in scotland. 80 miles per hour. possibly stronger. rain clearing from southern areas of the country. rain almost everywhere. then sunshine. and then showers. turning wintry in the high ground in the north. thursday and friday, more cold air down through the country. the potential of snow showers, even a fairly low levels to be a mixture of rain sleet and hill snow in the south—east for friday. then showers in western areas and northern areas in particular. any showers that fall even at low levels are likely to contain snow. the thermometer, 2— five degrees. feeling sub—zero with the strength of the northerly wind. storm caroline bringing wind and rain. then much colder. then snow
showers with the risk of some ice. this is news day on the bbc. i'm rico hizon in singapore. our top story: russia is banned from next yea r‘s story: russia is banned from next year's winter olympics in south korea after allegations of state—sponsored doping. the terrorist threat in britain. an official report asks whether the manchester bombing could have been prevented. also in the programme, president trump tells israeli and arab leaders he plans to move america's embassy in israel to jerusalem. decades after japan's kamikaze pilots attacked warships in the pacific, we hear from pilots attacked warships in the pacific, we hearfrom a rare survivor of those suicidal missions. live from our studios in singapore